Suppose we have 2 children going out to a restaurant with their families. One is told by their parents that if they behave they will get to watch tv later, and if they misbehave they will be spanked. The second child’s parents explains to them how there are other people in the restaurant that want to enjoy their meal, and they point out that if those people made a scene it would make our families meal less enjoyable. Both children behave, but which one is more moral?

I was thinking about this today, and I feel like atheists that are secular humanists are, in some ways, more moral than christians/theists. When we are good, we do so for goodness sakes. We are empathetic to people around us. A Christian, when they do good, only does so because there is an authority standing over them that will reward them for doing good and punish them if they don’t. It’s worse then that, because the Christian can actually do all the bad they want and as long as they ask for forgiveness and believe Jesus gave up a weekend dead on the cross, they won’t be punished at all. It’s like the kid can misbehave all they want at the restaurant as long as they say sowy once they get home. That’s not the point of this post though.

The question is: are christians moral agents? Are they using their reason and empathy to reach rational conclusions about morality (whether it’s granted by an evolved mind or a magic fruit)? If one is surrendering their humanity to blindly follow the proclamations of an authority figure without actually considering the harm the instructions may or may not be causing, then I don’t think they can be considered a moral agent. If we are lucky, they happen to be following an authority that’s giving moral proclamations. Unfortunately in too many cases, the authority is corrupt and opportunistic. Either way, if you are blindly trusting an authority instead of relying on reason and empathy then you aren’t a moral agent, you are a moral puppet. In the case of christians, they aren’t even getting instructions directly from an authority! They only have an old book that people claim was inspired by the authority giving them arbitrary rules and promising reward/punishments.

Luckily I don’t believe this is really the case, I think (most) christians get their morality from the same place secular humanists do: reason and empathy. This is evidenced by the church changing its mind on all manner of things to reflect the attitudes of the time (slavery, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc...). They simply credit their morality to a god and reinterpret scripture to match their new outlook. I’m a fan of that because at least it’s progress of a kind, I just wish you all would skip the extra step and join the rest of us in the 21st century. I know there is an argument that atheists borrow from the Christian world view for things like the golden rule, I’m ok with that. If there is no god then all of Christianity is man made, so whats wrong with humans borrowing ideas from other humans? If there is a god then that changes things, anybody have some evidence?

It is generally agreed by believers that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are subject to God’s arbitrary decision or whether they are subject to the physical laws of reality and their impact on the experience of thinking agents.

I believe that any Christian that thinks and cares about others is a moral agent. The ones that prioritize doctrine over well being are not moral agents, they have sacrificed their humanity in the name of their religion.
Thoughts?

7365030

Thoughts?

I think it's kinda ironic how you, an atheist, will insist that religious beliefs have little to do with moral beliefs, then turn around and conflate "Christian" with "Spankings".

7365221
I was referencing the threat of hell when I mentioned the spanking. I don’t know about ‘insist’. I am convinced that’s the case, but I’m open to other view points.

Why do you find it ironic?

7365222

I was referencing the threat of hell when I mentioned the spanking.

You didn't mention hell at all in your OP.

Why do you find it ironic?

It's ironic because you get annoyed when theists judge your morality based on your religious beliefs; (or lack thereof) and then immediately do exactly the same thing.

To put it another way:

Theists: "Atheists are inherently immoral."
You: "Theists are inherently immoral."

These statements are exactly the same, just with the subject mirrored. You don't like it when they do it, but you have no problem doing it yourself.

A moral agent is someone who has the capacity to discern right from wrong and is held as being responsible for their actions. Christians are absolutely moral agents. You seem to simply be arguing that Christians behave less morally.

7365230
I’m not annoyed, and nor am I saying that theists can’t be moral. I’m saying that if you don’t base your morality on how it affects conscious creatures and instead only follow edicts from an authority (whether it’s a holy book or a cult leader or a dictator) then you aren’t exercising moral agency.

If it turns out god exists then behaving in such a way that keeps people from going to hell would be moral, because hell would definitely affect the experience of the thinking agents that go there. There is no reason to think that hell (or any afterlife) exists though, so doing things to avoid it at the expense of people in RL (like conversion therapy for gay kids or shunning/killing people that leave the faith) is bad.

7365243
Sorry if I’m not really clear, that’s not quite what I mean. I’m not saying Christians (or any religious group) is less moral than anyone else.

I’m saying that if you are using ‘what god wants’ as your standard (or any arbitrary declaration) then you aren’t dealing with morality. Is it right to murder someone for the crime of witchcraft? According to the bible’s morality, yes. According to morality using well being as a foundation, no.

Most Christians don’t murder witches (or own slaves or kill gays) because they are moral agents that are concerned with well being.

Edit: morality has nothing with being held responsible for actions. Committing genocide is bad whether I can get away with it or not. Donating my time to a charity is good whether I am rewarded for it or not.

7365230

You don't like it when they do it, but you have no problem doing it yourself.

This is false. I can't speak for OP but "I don't like it when they do it" isn't accurate. Being criticized is desirable. We should all be critical of ourselves and welcome the assistance from others.

The issue isn't criticism. The issue isn't examining of moral frameworks. What is often a problem is hypocrisy and malicious intent. The Christian (and most theists) operate as if faith is a virtue and shun criticism and any dissent. Their goal isn't to find the best moral choices to make or the best moral framework. It's to reinforce the one they've already chosen.

I've had plenty of conversations in my life with chaplains, priests, and various clergy. The genuinely curious ones that wanted to learn about me as an atheist individual were great conversations. And those involved a great deal of questioning my positions, values, and the thinking behind my choices. They didn't shy away from similar questioning from me in kind. They admitted they weren't used to having to consider the questions I brought up. As a much younger version of myself I hadn't yet considered their questions either. We all came away from the exchange better for it. I changed my mind on things (though perhaps not the way they expected) and they changed theirs (not the way I expected).

There are also bad conversations. Where one side just wants to preach/spread propaganda. They're judging not criticizing. In this exchange between you and OP, you're certainly coming across that way. Rather than seeking errors and seeking improvement, you're actually condemning criticism itself. How dare someone examine a moral framework?

7365030
There are some questionable framing choices in your post. I don't think they're important, but others are clearly questioning them.

The substance of your post is solid enough. I think your analogy of the two children sums it up pretty well. It's a specific example to draw attention towards the idea. That it isn't perfectly the idea in total isn't a fair criticism.

There is clearly a difference of value between someone making a good choice for selfish reasons and someone making the same choice for altruistic reasons. They both performed one good act. They're equal there. But the former is operating in a framework that isn't conducive to further good acts. Getting away with bad acts if you don't get caught is a real problem for that framework. Doing good but spending a great deal of effort advertising that good act in order to ensure recognition for it and reward is another.

Basing the moral framework upon empathy and well-being is a stronger framework. Effort spent in evading detection could be spent evading bad choices. Effort spent marketing good behavior could be spent improving the behavior.

Missing from your OP is a more "individual within the community" perspective. When living in the theist reward/punishment system, it can be pleasant as others around you do good things and you do good things. It becomes unpleasant when they begin judging you (or you observe them judging another member). When the community emphasizes the spanking/hell part. When they take steps to ensure they find the ones deserving the rod. To counteract the hiding criminal. When you're doing nothing wrong but the community disagrees. Or suspects otherwise.

Whereas the latter framework produces a better community. More good deeds are done. Because people are more trustworthy, less policing and judgement is needed. Even if you didn't see them doing it, you can expect others in this framework to have done good behind your back rather than evil.

The obvious problem with that is that it isn't absolute. There will still be criminals in the latter system. There will still be people that choose to do evil and hide it. It's not a perfect solution to a complicated problem. It's better than the reward/punishment framework. But not so totally all-encompassing better that we should abandon everything and embrace this superior idiology. It's a small refinement. It's better. A little bit. We need a lot of other small, better things to reach the big solutions people want.

I think you pointed out well the ways it's better and I've added to that. Let's watch the eye-rolling obvious responses though. The nitpicking semantics and pedantic ones.

7365438

This is false.... Being criticized is desirable.

"I like it when Christians judge me as morally inferior to them because I don't follow their religion. That's 'desirable criticism.'"

*Proceeds to tell a series of anecdotes that showcase how conversations with Christians who did not judge you as morally inferior were pleasant, and conversations with Christians who did were unpleasant.*

Like, bruh, what are you on?

Rather than seeking errors and seeking improvement, you're actually condemning criticism itself.

Me: "It's hypocritical of OP to condemn moral judgement on the grounds of religious belief when levied against himself and then utilize that same exact style of judgement so he can paint all Christians with the same brush."

You: "You're just condemning criticism itself."

Seriously, whatever you're taking, stop. It's damaging your brain.

7365294

I’m not annoyed, and nor am I saying that theists can’t be moral. I’m saying that if you don’t base your morality on how it affects conscious creatures and instead only follow edicts from an authority... then you aren’t exercising moral agency.

"I'm not saying that theists can't be moral."

*Proceeds to explain how theists can't be moral in the next sentence.*

7365685

It's hypocritical of OP to condemn moral judgement on the grounds of religious belief when levied against himself and then utilize that same exact style of judgement so he can paint all Christians with the same brush.

Why are you mischaracterizing my post? I never said anything about Christians judging my morality based on my religious beliefs being bad. I welcome them to analyze and criticize the foundation of morality I talked about, that’s exactly what I did to them.

For painting with the same brush, I agree I was sloppy. I did say ‘when christians do good...’ without any caveats. I should have said ‘when christians that completely surrender their autonomy to their dogma do good...’ or something like that. If you keep reading I also point out that I believe Christians can and do do (🤣) good things, sometimes because the authority they are following happens to be good and other times because they are empathetic and caring of other thinking agents.
7365687

"I'm not saying that theists can't be moral."

*Proceeds to explain how theists can't be moral in the next sentence.*

Did you even read the ‘next sentence’ that you quoted? Do you realize that moral agency is different from moral action? (If you don’t understand the difference then please ask, I’m happy to explain what I mean).

I believe that any Christian that thinks and cares about others is a moral agent.

In my OP I literally say that Christians can be moral agents.

The impression I’m getting is that you completely disagree with or are made uncomfortable by my post. You either don’t have the time, energy, or vocabulary to explain yourself fully so are trying to manufacture contradictions to discredit the whole thing. I could be wrong (probably am considering I don’t know you), but that’s just honesty what I’m seeing.

I welcome conversation and disagreement with my post, and will enthusiastically admit where it could have been better. I just feel like you are reading what is said in the most uncharitable way you can, and that’s not going to make for a good conversation that we can all benefit from.

7365438
Great points! This was very much a spur of the moment post. I banged it out in 20 minutes based on my thoughts at work today so I definitely think it could have been communicated better. Both this thread and on others where I posted it have some recurring criticisms in the responses. Next time I should get you to proof read and clean it up before I post! (Just kidding, mostly )

I have discussed morality in about 4 thread convos recently with theists, so this was kind of a spin off of those convos trimmed to be digestible on its own. This one I especially went into detail.

Thanks for the feedback!!!

7365695

I never said anything about Christians judging my morality based on my religious beliefs being bad.

Oh, okay. Fine. You never said that you dislike it when people judge you as inherently inferior to them because of a simple disagreement. I made an assumption there.

But to be perfectly honest, I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption to make.

In fact, I'd say disliking such a thing is virtually universal.

I welcome them to analyze and criticize the foundation of morality I talked about, that’s exactly what I did to them.

There's a fucking big difference between criticizing someone's morals and saying that they cannot be as moral as you are because they have different beliefs to you.

Do you realize that moral agency is different from moral action?

Action comes from agency. People use agency to act. If you don't have agency, you can't act.

To say that someone is not a moral agent is to say that they can't preform moral actions.

You: "Can Christians be moral agents?"
Also you: "I believe that any Christian that thinks and cares about others is a moral agent."

So what was the point of this thread, then?

EDIT:

The impression I’m getting is that you completely disagree with or are made uncomfortable by my post.

You're right. I completely disagree with the notion that someone being a Christian makes them incapable of acting morally.

I also completely disagree with the notion that believing in any god, Christian or otherwise, makes you a less moral person than an atheist.

People of all stripes are capable of being moral and amoral. There are good and evil atheists, and good and evil theists.

Good and evil are things that humans do. Not beliefs.

7365758

You never said that you dislike it when people judge you as inherently inferior to them because of a simple disagreement. I made an assumption there.

But to be perfectly honest, I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption to make.

In fact, I'd say disliking such a thing is virtually universal.

Fair enough, I think I agree with that. I don’t like it when someone judges me as inferior due to a difference of opinion.

That said, if someone thinks that their opinion is superior to my opinion (and they offer an argument to back it up) then cool! Let’s talk! That’s what I’ve done here.

Action comes from agency. People use agency to act. If you don't have agency, you can't act.

Hopefully this clears it up. If someone has moral agency then they are making moral judgements as opposed to simply following the pronouncements of some other authority. If the authority tells the follower to do something good then they are doing a moral action, but they didn’t determine it was moral with their own reason and empathy. That’s the difference.

To say that someone is not a moral agent is to say that they can't preform moral actions.

No. To say that someone is not a moral agent is to say that they may or may not preform moral actions, it depends on what the arbitrary authority that they are following says.
“With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg

So what was the point of this thread, then?

Sharing my thoughts and having a conversation with others that either agree of disagree. Also learning how to more clearly share my thoughts in the future.

You're right. I completely disagree with the notion that someone being a Christian makes them incapable of acting morally.

Awesome! In this we are on the same page.

I also completely disagree with the notion that believing in any god, Christian or otherwise, makes you a less moral person than an atheist.

I completely agree. If you believe in god and base your moral judgments on the consequences of actions in relation to the well being of conscious creatures then you are absolutely just as moral as any secular humanist. If you don’t base morality on well-being and instead base it on the alleged word of a divine source (or any dogmatic proclamation) then you are exposed to being influenced to do some very immoral things while thinking it’s fine. If you own slaves because you think god says it’s ok (which the bible definitely does) then you are less moral than both the secular humanist and the Christian humanist that is opposed to slavery.

People of all stripes are capable of being moral and amoral. There are good and evil atheists, and good and evil theists.
Good and evil are things that humans do. Not beliefs.

I agree. Read my OP, I specifically referred to atheists that are secular humanists. Atheism on its own has no position on moral questions at all.

The question I’m addressing is this: what is the standard that is used to determine good actions from bad actions? Is it god, or well being?

7365297

morality has nothing with being held responsible for actions. Committing genocide is bad whether I can get away with it or not. Donating my time to a charity is good whether I am rewarded for it or not.

Being held as being responsible for an action has nothing to do with whether you receive any punishment for a negative action or praise for a positive action. If you shit on my car, you're responsible for it whether anyone knows you did it or not. If a bird shits on my car, they're not responsible because they aren't moral agents.

Being a moral agent has nothing to do with being moral. (Or rather, they are related in the sense that moral or immoral actions must be attributed to a moral agent, but having moral agency doesn't indicate whether the actions you take will be moral or immoral.)

7365858
Ah, sorry about that. I misunderstood you earlier. I conflated moral responsibility with being held accountable.

Yes I completely agree that I am responsible for crapping on your car whether I am discovered for it or not. If I’m not discovered then I won’t be held accountable for my action. If I am discovered then I will be held accountable and potentially punished.

The tv reward/spank punishment in my analogy was meant to represent heaven and hell.

What I was talking about when I said what you quoted is this: An action that will lead me to heaven (because it’s aligned with gods word) but demonstrably harms thinking agents, is a bad action (example: killing a witch). Doing something that will send me to hell/is against gods law but doesn’t actually harm anybody is not an evil action (like being gay). God has his arbitrary rules, some are in line with morality and others aren’t.

I completely agree that only someone with agency can be compared to a moral standard. It’s not evil when a bear or a thunderstorm kills someone. It’s the nerotypical members of the human race that have agency and the potential to be moral or not.

The question is: what is morality? Is it accepting what an authority figure has to say, or is it identifying a standard (well being) and making judgments based on how consequences of actions affect that standard? If you are doing the former, then I would argue you are using your agency to choose to opt out of the conversation. (Being gay is bad. Why tho? Because god said it and I believe it. Not much can be said after that.) If you are doing the latter, then instead of emulating a sheep following a shepherd you are a part of the conversation and exercising what I’m calling moral agency.

7366304

the nerotypical members of the human race

Pardent ?

7366423
People that aren’t mentally disabled.

7366432
that's not the rite word

7366437
Pardent?

7366438
neurotypical is for the ones that don't have Asperger

not displaying or characterized by autistic or other neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior.
"neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one or the only correct one"

https://www.google.ca/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03pEIUuZFyajAychpDdGol-B5kRiA%3A1604558673197&source=hp&ei=UZ-jX_r5CczF-gScmIfQBw&q=nerotypical&btnK=Google+Search

7366439
Ah, I thought it was a blanket term for anyone that doesn’t have mental disabilities, autism, aspergers, down syndrome, or anything else. My bad!

7366440
it's ok

7366444
What do you recommend I say instead? I feel like ‘normal’ can come off as harsh or rude to others. Fully cognizant? Mentally sound? Those of sound mind and body? I don’t feel like any of these are very good

7366450
Rational Mind !?

7366452
I can’t use that. Rational has a very specific meaning in philosophy, and a different meaning in normal day-to-day language. Someone can be a rational person colloquially (intelligent and insightful) and yet be convinced of something by an irrational argument. There’s one user in particular that often accuses me of saying ‘no Christian is rational, no Christian can be logical’ because I point out that the arguments presented are not rational.

If I said “It’s the members of the human race with rational minds that have agency and the potential to be moral or not.” Then this user and possibly others would interpret that as me saying: “It’s the members of the human race that are not Christian that have agency and the potential to be moral or not.” Considering that’s the exact opposite of what I believe, this would be a disastrous communication breakdown.